Actually I do agree that upgrading Firefox is free, and upgrading IE can't be done by itself, you have to pay about $100 for a new operating system.
But that's irrelevant to my point, and you're either very stupid or very naive to have missed it. Slashdot concealed the fact that a fully patched XP machine isn't vulnerable to the exploits in question. I said it was wrong that they concealed that. Are we still on the same page Jameth, or did you get lost once more?
The number of installs isn't pertinent to my argument. The fact that a fully patched XP machine is not vulnerable -- this is the basic truth that I'm arguing the Slashdot editors ought to mentioned in the/. story reference. Hiding this fact is deceptive with the purpose of inflamming anger against Microsoft.
Under the same faulty thinking, the FireFox exploit that deletes all the files in the default download directory is present on
FireFox PR 1 FireFox.9 FireFox 0.8 and so on
An XP machine that is fully patched is not vulnerable to the said problems, this is an undeniable fact that I was trying to point out in my original post. And because this fact was never mentioned in the/. story, and hidden away in the actual news article, there is obviously an agenda at work.
I RTFA, and hidden away deep in the article, we find this gem:
Note that the latest version of Internet Explorer, as patched by Windows XP Service Pack 2, is not vulnerable to the installations shown...
In other words, he's running all this on an unpatched XP machine.
Now, before the Slashdot horde stabs me repeatedly with a big sharp knife for being a Microsoft apologist, consider this situation. I've got an old version of Firefox with a few exploits in it. I report the exploit, and the response I get is that these exploits are already patched. Yet I decide to write a story about the horrific exploits, post it to Slashdot, and stir up a raucus about how bad FireFox's security is.
What I'm proposing is that Slashdot report it's stories with less sensationalism and more professionalism. Put in the story that all this was run on an unpatched machine, and that the said security holes have already been fixed.
Hi there I'm Joe Farmer and I'd like to rennovate the farming business using this new open sores model yer keep talkin' 'bout. I'm figurin' that, following what you Lienucks folks been sayin' 'bout JeePeel license, I figure I can make a good livin'.
That's right friends, I'm givin' away my crops and livestock for free.I'm givin' it free 'cause everyone will benefit and, like yer digital info wantin' to be free, food wants to be a-eatin'.
Yep, you heard right friend, all my hard work and effort I'm givin' away free. All those other farmers are the evil satan worshippers, don't you be forgettin' it.
So how'mi supposed to be makin' a livin', yer askin? I reckin' I'll be doin' it like such:
1. Work as a farming consultant. I'll just sit here and wait for the phone to ring. Any minute now.
2. Give my crops and livestock away only to the public, but make those satan worshipping corporations pay fer it.
3. Give last months crops away for free, and just sell the new, improved crops. Too bad folks are content with month-old corn.
4. Give my crops away at a state fair, but make those satan worshipping corporations pay for advertisin' at my fair booth.
It merely points out that Bush did much better than expected. [...] If the researchers would seem to favor anything, it would be the use of voting equipment that allows for accurate voting and checking of the vote.
Translation for the moderators: If politically motivated, left-wing Berkeley 'researchers' would favor anything, they'd favor 'researching' anything where Bush could lose votes to Kerry. Add the cover up of voting machine problems, mixed with the hype of a press conference, and you've got for yourself FUD surrounding the 2004 election, thereby questioning the Bush presidency, accomplishing the goal of the biased 'researchers'.
Because Linux users comprise less than 2% of the overall desktop market. Don't get religious about it; it's simply the fact that most of the time, it's not financially worth the development effort to port a game, especially a DirectX-based game, over to Linux.
For those that don't know the background to the story, Joel published a "How Microsoft Lost the API War" essay on his blog which stirred up enough developers at Microsoft that the company decided it would backport their new windowing and rendering system ("Avalon") and their new networking and messanging system ("Indigo") to previous versions of Windows, including XP. Before this essay, the said technologies had been designed for Windows Longhorn only.
Point being that Joel has a lot of influence and a lot of respect among the Microsoft folks. I also hope his suggestion of a linker for.NET falls on listening ears in Redmond, time will tell.
Propaganda? There were telling the enemy to go home so as to inflict fewer casualties; considering the allied forces obliterated the Iraqi army within weeks, that may very well have saved lives.
I don't know about you, but I'm really getting tired of people bashing the British & American forces in Iraq. Sure, you can debate whether they should've gone in the first place, I will give you that, but now that they are there, will you not admit that they are in the right?
I mean, here we have a country filled with and ruled by fascists and Islamic fundamentalists, where women are looked down upon -- the United States attempts to install a democracy and yet people like you see the United States as "the bad guys". Are the US and British forces truely worse than the suicide bombers who kill civilians packed in buses, restaurants, and crowded Israeli markets, or worse than the Saddam Husseins of the world, or worse than the Islamic radicals that kill civilians in the name of Allah with knives, slowly sawing the throats of captured aid workers?
Yeah, he's definitely a GNU/GPL/Linux zealot extremist. I equate him with religious fundys, except that his religion is Linux and his Bible is the GPL. It's pointless arguing with someone like him, facts don't concern him, especially when they negatively affect his beloved religion.
My point is that it does not matter. SP2 might protect you against one little hole, but the rest of the structure is a sieve.
If you fail to realize that, for this particular story ("Big ol' hole in IE!!!"), the fact that the "big ol' hole" doesn't affect machines with SP2 installed (i.e. it is a hole which is already patched on XP), and you believe this fact to be irrelevant, then you truely are a blind GNU/Linux religion zealot not even worth arguing with.
Again, please stop telling me how great Linux & FF is. Stop trying to convert me, I don't like your religion. I know what Linux and Firefox are already, please stop babbling from your Linux bible and shut up for one second.
My point: tell people it doesn't affect Service Pack 2. It is important. No, don't come back with how much better Linux is, I'm talking about a story that was posted about security hole in Windows, yet an important fact was left untold. All I'm saying is don't conceal it, it's important to know.
Good for you, you don't have to pay for any M$ products. You seem to keep iterating that; I understood you the first time and it has no effect on what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that a fact that ought to be known, the fact that the vulnerability doesn't affect machines with Service Pack 2 installed, has been concealed by Slashdot and by people like you that think it doesn't matter.
But guess what? It does matter; network admins that have to apply patches to many, many machines on a corporate network CARE. If they've already patched the machine with SP2, then this security alert doesn't concern them.
But no, asshole zealots like yourself don't care about people, you just care about your pushing your open source views on others and slamming those who don't agree with them.
GNU/Linux/GPL nut jobs...you people will be the death of open source.
Again, I said in my original post that XP with SP2 was unaffected, a very important point purposefully ignored by Linux zealots such as yourself. I proved my point, I proved you wrong, but you're blind Linux zealotry is obscuring your views too much for you to see that.
FF blows away IE as I already sain in a reply to this thread. I'm using it to post this message in fact. My point is that this "vulnerability" doesn't affect XP machines patched with Service Pack 2. This fact was purposefully ignored and suppressed by Linux zealots like yourself to make you feel better about OSS.
First of all, keep in mind I'm posting this using FF 1.0. Been using it for almost a year now, and love it, acknowledge that it eons ahead of IE, safer than IE, yes, it is a great great tool.
Now that the butt kissing is out of the way, yes, I can back up my claim: http://secunia.com/advisories/12959/
Note how the vulnerability only affects XP and XP with SP1.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like a typical slashdotter -- you lose an argument, so you post some childish insults anonymously to make yourself feel better. Fuck off, asshat.
Actually I do agree that upgrading Firefox is free, and upgrading IE can't be done by itself, you have to pay about $100 for a new operating system.
But that's irrelevant to my point, and you're either very stupid or very naive to have missed it. Slashdot concealed the fact that a fully patched XP machine isn't vulnerable to the exploits in question. I said it was wrong that they concealed that. Are we still on the same page Jameth, or did you get lost once more?
The number of installs isn't pertinent to my argument. The fact that a fully patched XP machine is not vulnerable -- this is the basic truth that I'm arguing the Slashdot editors ought to mentioned in the /. story reference. Hiding this fact is deceptive with the purpose of inflamming anger against Microsoft.
Under the same faulty thinking, the FireFox exploit that deletes all the files in the default download directory is present on
.9
/. story, and hidden away in the actual news article, there is obviously an agenda at work.
FireFox PR 1
FireFox
FireFox 0.8
and so on
An XP machine that is fully patched is not vulnerable to the said problems, this is an undeniable fact that I was trying to point out in my original post. And because this fact was never mentioned in the
I RTFA, and hidden away deep in the article, we find this gem:
Note that the latest version of Internet Explorer, as patched by Windows XP Service Pack 2, is not vulnerable to the installations shown...
In other words, he's running all this on an unpatched XP machine.
Now, before the Slashdot horde stabs me repeatedly with a big sharp knife for being a Microsoft apologist, consider this situation. I've got an old version of Firefox with a few exploits in it. I report the exploit, and the response I get is that these exploits are already patched. Yet I decide to write a story about the horrific exploits, post it to Slashdot, and stir up a raucus about how bad FireFox's security is.
What I'm proposing is that Slashdot report it's stories with less sensationalism and more professionalism. Put in the story that all this was run on an unpatched machine, and that the said security holes have already been fixed.
Thank you.
I laugh at your pitiful prayers biatch.
But... I thought that peer-to-peer sharing was horribly immoral and only used for warez and porn!!
No, it's used for warez, porn and mp3s.
Amen man, nail on the head. Good to see some clarity among the so-called thinkers of this community.
According to Netcraft, it runs Apache on Linux.
Hi there I'm Joe Farmer and I'd like to rennovate the farming business using this new open sores model yer keep talkin' 'bout. I'm figurin' that, following what you Lienucks folks been sayin' 'bout JeePeel license, I figure I can make a good livin'.
That's right friends, I'm givin' away my crops and livestock for free.I'm givin' it free 'cause everyone will benefit and, like yer digital info wantin' to be free, food wants to be a-eatin'.
Yep, you heard right friend, all my hard work and effort I'm givin' away free. All those other farmers are the evil satan worshippers, don't you be forgettin' it.
So how'mi supposed to be makin' a livin', yer askin? I reckin' I'll be doin' it like such:
1. Work as a farming consultant. I'll just sit here and wait for the phone to ring. Any minute now.
2. Give my crops and livestock away only to the public, but make those satan worshipping corporations pay fer it.
3. Give last months crops away for free, and just sell the new, improved crops. Too bad folks are content with month-old corn.
4. Give my crops away at a state fair, but make those satan worshipping corporations pay for advertisin' at my fair booth.
Hope ya like my new fixins of my farm.
Sincerely yours,
-Joe Farmer
Thou Shalt Not Commit Thy Software for Commerce
Thou Shalt Smite Thy Microsoftie
Thou Shalt Bow To Thy Benovolent Leader RMS Thy God And Have Ye No Other God Before Him
That Shalt Not Take the Name of GNU/Linux In Vain
Thou Shalt Mod Down the unholy SlashDot Troll, For He is an Abomination unto Thee
Thou Shalt Not Click on false Gmail Links
Thou Shalt Not Fall to the Evil Seductress BSD, for She is an Unrighteous Whore Unto Thee
Thou Shalt Close Thine Ears Upon Hearing the False Testimony of the SCO, the Lies of TCO, and the injustices of the CMDRTCO.
Thou Shalt Moderate this Post to the Heavens, That All The Earth May Know of the Great And Fearful GPL.
"politcally motivated" - This is Berkeley we're talking about here. Yes, Berkeley. Enough said.
"left-wing" - Berkeley again. Yeah.
"they'd favor" - Conjecture if you're blind, obvious fact for the critical observer.
"the goal" - Rinse, repeat.
It merely points out that Bush did much better than expected. [...] If the researchers would seem to favor anything, it would be the use of voting equipment that allows for accurate voting and checking of the vote.
Translation for the moderators:
If politically motivated, left-wing Berkeley 'researchers' would favor anything, they'd favor 'researching' anything where Bush could lose votes to Kerry. Add the cover up of voting machine problems, mixed with the hype of a press conference, and you've got for yourself FUD surrounding the 2004 election, thereby questioning the Bush presidency, accomplishing the goal of the biased 'researchers'.
Wait -- Berkeley posts a report favoring Democrats?
You must be joking, that can't possibly happen.
Unfortunately for the Linux 'cause', you, for one, are a small minority.
Because Linux users comprise less than 2% of the overall desktop market. Don't get religious about it; it's simply the fact that most of the time, it's not financially worth the development effort to port a game, especially a DirectX-based game, over to Linux.
For those that don't know the background to the story, Joel published a "How Microsoft Lost the API War" essay on his blog which stirred up enough developers at Microsoft that the company decided it would backport their new windowing and rendering system ("Avalon") and their new networking and messanging system ("Indigo") to previous versions of Windows, including XP. Before this essay, the said technologies had been designed for Windows Longhorn only.
.NET falls on listening ears in Redmond, time will tell.
Point being that Joel has a lot of influence and a lot of respect among the Microsoft folks. I also hope his suggestion of a linker for
Propaganda? There were telling the enemy to go home so as to inflict fewer casualties; considering the allied forces obliterated the Iraqi army within weeks, that may very well have saved lives.
I don't know about you, but I'm really getting tired of people bashing the British & American forces in Iraq. Sure, you can debate whether they should've gone in the first place, I will give you that, but now that they are there, will you not admit that they are in the right?
I mean, here we have a country filled with and ruled by fascists and Islamic fundamentalists, where women are looked down upon -- the United States attempts to install a democracy and yet people like you see the United States as "the bad guys". Are the US and British forces truely worse than the suicide bombers who kill civilians packed in buses, restaurants, and crowded Israeli markets, or worse than the Saddam Husseins of the world, or worse than the Islamic radicals that kill civilians in the name of Allah with knives, slowly sawing the throats of captured aid workers?
Yeah, he's definitely a GNU/GPL/Linux zealot extremist. I equate him with religious fundys, except that his religion is Linux and his Bible is the GPL. It's pointless arguing with someone like him, facts don't concern him, especially when they negatively affect his beloved religion.
My point is that it does not matter. SP2 might protect you against one little hole, but the rest of the structure is a sieve.
If you fail to realize that, for this particular story ("Big ol' hole in IE!!!"), the fact that the "big ol' hole" doesn't affect machines with SP2 installed (i.e. it is a hole which is already patched on XP), and you believe this fact to be irrelevant, then you truely are a blind GNU/Linux religion zealot not even worth arguing with.
What other classic toys do you remember from your youth that are still fun enough that kids will play with them today?
Coal. You insensitive clod.
Again, please stop telling me how great Linux & FF is. Stop trying to convert me, I don't like your religion. I know what Linux and Firefox are already, please stop babbling from your Linux bible and shut up for one second.
My point: tell people it doesn't affect Service Pack 2. It is important. No, don't come back with how much better Linux is, I'm talking about a story that was posted about security hole in Windows, yet an important fact was left untold. All I'm saying is don't conceal it, it's important to know.
Simple as that.
Good for you, you don't have to pay for any M$ products. You seem to keep iterating that; I understood you the first time and it has no effect on what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that a fact that ought to be known, the fact that the vulnerability doesn't affect machines with Service Pack 2 installed, has been concealed by Slashdot and by people like you that think it doesn't matter. But guess what? It does matter; network admins that have to apply patches to many, many machines on a corporate network CARE. If they've already patched the machine with SP2, then this security alert doesn't concern them. But no, asshole zealots like yourself don't care about people, you just care about your pushing your open source views on others and slamming those who don't agree with them. GNU/Linux/GPL nut jobs...you people will be the death of open source.
Again, I said in my original post that XP with SP2 was unaffected, a very important point purposefully ignored by Linux zealots such as yourself. I proved my point, I proved you wrong, but you're blind Linux zealotry is obscuring your views too much for you to see that.
FF blows away IE as I already sain in a reply to this thread. I'm using it to post this message in fact. My point is that this "vulnerability" doesn't affect XP machines patched with Service Pack 2. This fact was purposefully ignored and suppressed by Linux zealots like yourself to make you feel better about OSS.
The truth shall set you free.
First of all, keep in mind I'm posting this using FF 1.0. Been using it for almost a year now, and love it, acknowledge that it eons ahead of IE, safer than IE, yes, it is a great great tool.
:-)
Now that the butt kissing is out of the way, yes, I can back up my claim: http://secunia.com/advisories/12959/
Note how the vulnerability only affects XP and XP with SP1.
You're welcome.